Cold hard cash. It’s good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.

But that’s not the case here in Louisiana now. It’s a law that was passed during this year’s busy legislative session.

House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don’t even know about it.

“We’re gonna lose a lot of business,” says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items.

“We don’t want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It’s an everyday transaction,” Guidry explains.

Guidry says, “I think everyone in this business once they find out about it. They’re will definitely be a lot of uproar.”

The law states those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash. State representative Rickey Hardy co-authored the bill.

I’m not sure how this is legal, given that federal law states that US currency is considered legal tender for all transactions. Private business don’t have to accept cash, but I’m not sure how a state can ban private business from accepting it.

Lawyers? Am I wrong about this?

Oh, and this was done in the name of crime prevention by a Democrat. Whatever the intent, I am not sure how this is legal, and has the side effect of making everyone more beholden to banks and the credit card industry. Idiocy.

They’ve enacted a law in Washington that metal yards have to send the person who is selling the metal a check for the amount that they receive for the metal and not give money to them right there on the spot. The reason is that if you stole the metal, the yard then has an address and name of the person who tried to sell it, and if it were stolen, then they can trace it.

And the last line of the story notes that pawn shops – the MOST likely place for a criminal to fence stolen goods – can still deal in cash because they “keep records”.

Goodwill – where no sane criminal is going to ditch property he has stolen – isn’t allowed to deal in cash but pawn shops are?

There’s more than crime prevention going on here. Maybe the Louisiana legislature is full of morons. Maybe this law was drafted by the banking industry and the pawn shop lobby was able to get an exemption. Maybe all of the above. But wow, this is stupid.

IANAL but as far as I always understood it the whole “won’t accept cash” was restricted to goods and not services because with goods they can decline to sell to you if you don’t pay how they want in advance, but that they MUST accept cash for services already rendered because of the whole pesky “legal tender” issue. I don’t see how this law can possibly be legal because by banning cash sales the LA government is, in effect, saying that cash isn’t legal tender for goods and services if they’re second hand. That’s not their decision to make, it’s a federal issue.

Or am I completely off base here? Because I’d imagine if monitary policy was a state issue we be finding a whole bunch of numbnuts in the south starting up state gold-only banks. We don’t, so what gives?

Well, hard to say what the intent was from looking at Rickey Hardy’s finances and positions. And while he seems to have attended Southwest Paralegal College, there’s no indication that he ever graduated. Big surprise, that.

So … I’m guessing that no one in the La. lege really looked into what unintended consequences might arise from such a bill. I hate to sound, I dunno, “elitist”, but I’m not surprised this would come up in Louisiana. Not the first dumb-as-a-rock political move to emerge from that state. (See Jindal, Bobby, among many others.)

My guess is that it’ll fall after the first legal challenge. If it even gets to that.

@cathyx:
I’m pretty sure the crime prevention angle is honest. Second hand stores, especially places like pawn shops, often make their big money fencing stolen goods. Here in California, at least, tightening up regulation of pawn shops has been tremendously effective in cutting down on residential burglary. That’s more on the buying side than the selling side, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the same people who were happy to act as fences weren’t engaged in tax evasion, too, where doing everything in cash is very helpful. Forbidding cash sales is a draconian solution, but it’s a response to a real problem.

@Linda Featheringill: Maybe they are trying to outlaw poverty by making it a crime to transact business as poor people do. It must be hard on those poor banksters not being able to get their paws on the proceeds of the sale of used car seats, high chairs and such.

Well, on the “bright” side, under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, the poor folk won’t have to pay sales tax on these second hand transactions. But they will have to either pay the bank for a checking account, or pay extra for money orders, or something. I wonder if we can call that an “invisible tax.”

I’m not sure how this is legal, given that federal law states that US currency is considered legal tender for all transactions. Private business don’t have to accept cash, but I’m not sure how a state can ban private business from accepting it. Lawyers? Am I wrong about this?

No, you’re right. It’s unconstitutional, won’t survive the first court challenge, since it violates federal law (which trumps state law in this area), enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause, that federal reserve notes are legal tender “for all debts public and private”.

Actually it would also hurt people like me, I never buy something new unless I absolutely have to, not because I am poor but because I’m a damn cheapskate. Why pay $10.00 for a toaster at Walmart or wherever when I can pick one up at a Thrift Store for $3.00 or less? When my husband had his heart attack and then started seriously losing weight (intentionally) I actually didn’t mind that I had to replace his wardrobe several times. It’s the thrill of the hunt for me.

If they ever introduce something like this in NC I will have some sharp words to say. :)

Pawn shops here are heavily policed, and people go to jail when they break the law. In one case, every pawn owner in Lansing at the same time in a group bust. They have to be scrupulous about records because the consequences are harsh. And it works.

How are they going to enforce this? Are they going budget for police to patrol neighborhoods looking for garage sales? Will they have undercover cops trolling Craigslist and Ebay? A cash transaction between two parties is one of the easiest things in the world to keep secret, unless they’re planning on having everyone submit a monthly inventory of everything they own. This just doesn’t make any sense.

@Rafer Janders:
And as explained by a few lawyers you can stipulate the terms of payment (Cash only, no cash unless exact change etc.) *before* the transaction – after that you can be paid in any ‘resonable currency’ (or it might have been customary currency) which is one of those ‘reasonable person’ things.
back in the day it was just cash, not it’s prolly cash + credit.

For everyone guessing, this law is obviously about making every transaction taxable. Then they can complain about bringing in too much tax revenue, and lower property taxes on homes worth more than $1million.

The bill, as passed. turns out it’s not quite as bad as the news article reports.

REGULAR dealers in secondhand goods, scrap metal, and junk are required to make records of cash deals of more than $25. Record includes ID of seller/buyer, description of goods (to include identifying marks if they exist), and cash exchanged.

Regular dealers are those who do this more than once a month. Yes, a multi-day garage sale counts.

In other words cash hasn’t been made illegal. Cash without records is what’s illegal.

In St. Paul MN, pawn shops are required to provide police with the serial number of every item they take in. I was able to recover a camera two months after it was stolen because of this.

When the camera was first stolen, I called some pawn shops in my neighborhood to ask them to keep an eye out for it, but one of the managers finally told me to knock it off – if he knew about my stolen camera, he wouldn’t touch it. I was more likely to get it back if I just let the system work.

We have quite a few toll roads around here that do not stipulate the forms of payment accepted until you have driven the road and get to the toll plaza. Only then do you learn that it is cash only – exact change required.

I always thought it was stupid marketing. I generally avoid the toll roads, not because I am cheap, but because at the time I need to make the decision, I am usually unclear about how much it is going to cost, in what form, and whether I have it on me.

Given that they don’t say anything about form of payment until you have already driven the road, how do they get away with restrictions after the fact?

I believe it’s an attempt to bring back the barter system, you know, swap shop for the masses.
__
Either that, or a whole mess of free-range chickens have been discovered and some wisenheimer is trying to corner the market.

How are they going to enforce this? Are they going budget for police to patrol neighborhoods looking for garage sales? Will they have undercover cops trolling Craigslist and Ebay?

You appear to be working under the assumption that the law will be enforced evenly. Idiot laws like this and curfews are wonderful excuses to harass minorities you don’t like without obviously “discriminating” against them.

That said, I wonder if this was a stupid execution of an attempt to get a handle on unreported cash sales that no one was paying sales taxes on.

Cash is legal tender for “debts.” At the point of sale or transaction, there is no debt yet, as the transaction has not yet been completed. Any business is free to not accept cash at the register.

In the case of paying cash for a debt, cash must be accepted as payment even if the two parties have contracted otherwise. So, if I contract to give you two horses now in exchange for two cows next spring, and come next spring I don’t have the cows, I can pay you fair value in cash and you must accept. That being said, I am still non-performing on that contract and may be liable for contractual damages that result from not providing the cows — if you have to spend $1000 to drive to town and buy the two cows you were expecting, that can be assessed in court as damages for non-performance.

That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some sort of pre-emption or other federal argument that the law is illegal.

REGULAR dealers in secondhand goods, scrap metal, and junk are required to make records of cash deals of more than $25. Record includes ID of seller/buyer, description of goods (to include identifying marks if they exist), and cash exchanged.

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s not what the bill seems to say.

According to the bill, “Anyone, other than a nonprofit entity, who buys, sells, trades in, or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or secondhand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a nonprofit entity, shall be deemed as being engaged in the business of a secondhand dealer.”

That tells me, that if in the span of a month, I buy two things of craigslist, I am going to be subject to the law.

Which seems really asinine after I make the second purchase.

After I get all of second seller’s ID information, and a signed statement saying what they sold me isn’t stolen…I then have to go back to the previous person I bought something from, and get the same information from them.

This is one of the dumbest laws, I have heard proposed, in a long time. Why do politicians feel that it is necessary, to punish everyone, for the acts of a small minority of people that are criminals?

EDIT: All of this may be wrong because I don’t know if an individual is, by default, considered a non-profit entity.

It’s unconstitutional, won’t survive the first court challenge, since it violates federal law (which trumps state law in this area), enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause, that federal reserve notes are legal tender “for all debts public and private”.

But the key here is, like the draconian abortion laws and voter id laws that have been implemented in states recently, it takes a whole lot longer to move through a state court system to challenge than if it was a Federal law. Plus, in a poor state like Louisiana, those persons who may actually have been “harmed” and thus have standing will be less likely to even know where to begin to take legal action.

How are they going to enforce this? Are they going budget for police to patrol neighborhoods looking for garage sales? Will they have undercover cops trolling Craigslist and Ebay?

Yes, and yes. In the same way forcing their cops to meet quotas for tickets written for minor traffic and other infractions, this is the way cities today–strapped for cash in the form of gross receipts taxes– are using their police officers as revenue collectors. And no one should stand for it.

It’s about tracking money flow. Don’t know about you guys, but my friends and I do a TON of things by cash only and don’t report it. My hairdresser gets paid in cash. The guys who help me with the yard get paid in cash. We never track any of it. It’s just what we do.

I expect, especially in the current economy, that under the radar “black market” is thriving.

I don’t see how this law can possibly be legal because by banning cash sales the LA government is, in effect, saying that cash isn’t legal tender for goods and services if they’re second hand.

Enter 9-9-9, where all new goods get taxed*. If you can’t sell used goods, sell ’em as “new,” collect and pay the tax, and no one says you aren’t law-abiding. On second thought, it’s a dumb law, and almost certain to be struck down by the first judge it gets brought before.

[*It seems to me in passing, by the way, that if the 9% sales tax on new goods gets passed, no one will buy “new.” Every car will be a “demo,” every TV a “shop demo model,” every off-the-shelf item’s bubble-wrap will be opened, then taped shut — thus showing it’s “used” — and no one will abide by the law.]

y’all should bitch so hard. For 2 years, I’ve watched a group in my ultraliberal california town attempt to get a law passed banning wood fires. Not just the improved standards for fireplaces, or a general attempt to get people to upgrade woodburning stoves to newer cleaner standards, just an outright ban. It can get cold here and wood is a decent alternative to using gas or electric heat But they want it to be illegal. I make no issue with their reason or the fact that our EIR studies on the pollutants blame cars as the worst of the problem, it’s that they want a law crafted that the shrinking police force would have to deal. What are we going to do, have CSI: Soft Woods? Install a patrolman to go door to door, checking woodpiles? Bad law, it’s not just for the South.

Yes, the point isn’t whether cash is legal tender or not, the point is whether the state of Louisiana can legally pass a bill forbidding the use of federal reserve notes in private commercial transactions between individuals who would prefer to use federal reserve notes. And it can’t. The federal government has primacy here.

@RareSanity: You’re slightly confused but I don’t blame you. Look at the early part of the bill. It defines anyone who deals in these more than once a month (yes, your craigslist may apply) is a “regular dealer”.

If you’re a regular dealer by the definition of the law, you’re required to make a record of cash transactions involving more than $25.

Nudist foodies in San Francisco may soon find themselves forced to cover up.
__
Public nudity is legal in the Bay Area city, and no one is suggesting that residents will be barred from taking a stroll down the street or a picnic at the park in the buff.
__
But restaurants may soon be off limits to the unattired, and San Francisco supervisors are also considering codifying a practice that nudists call “normal etiquette,” by requiring those who bare it all in public to lay down a cover on public seating before they sit down.

@Spencer Neal: perhaps you should have read the entire article, instead of focusing solely on the judge’s opinion. here is the paragraph following that opinion:

What immediately stands out is how Judge David Larimer, with the use of the word “merely” in lieu of anything remotely resembling a rationale, ignores the legal implications of his ruling. Of course, that doesn’t mean the ordinance there, or Louisiana law here, is unconstitutional, but rather than this decision provides no persuasive basis to suggest otherwise.

this was a district court judge’s opinion, not a USSC opinion. my guess is that this ruling will be overturned on appeal, since the judge didn’t even bother to provide any kind of actual constitutional support for it.

@Martin: I see those folks who are protesting at Market & Castro all the time & me personally, I don’t care. But to a certain extent I agree with something I read in a Dan Savage column a while back. It went like this…nudists are relatively harmless. But those who are exhibitionists aren’t. What is the diff? Well, it comes down to consenting adults. You wanna get your kicks being an exhibitionist? Fine, get those you are doing it to to agree with you. Otherwise you are using folks in your own sexual manner who might not want to be used in such a manner. Consenting adults. Now how to know if someone is getting their kicks or someone just thinks nothing of going ‘sky clad’? I can’t say.

The law defines a second hand dealer as anyone who buys or sells more than one second hand object and/or “Junk” (which is defined as “what is commonly considered junk”) in a month. It also requires that a dealer have a license, that the dealer keep detailed records (including the weight of the item)and that these records can be seen by any law enforcement record at any time. The no cash business is only a fraction of what is wrong with this law.

If any of these are not correct there are automatic criminal sanctions including jail time and fines. Read the law.

Basically this means that every literate person in LA could be a criminal (assuming you buy more than one used book at a time sometime from anywhere including the internet.)

Liberals see this bill and immediately “know” it’s a way for the giant BankCorps to get a share of every transaction poor people make. Conservatives immediately “know” it’s a sneaky way to track guns. Libertarians “know” it’s a scheme to collect taxes on everything and/or send roving gangs of jack-booted enforcers to every garage sale.

And when any of them are shown evidence that their reactions are ridiculously exaggerated, they either spin around it like a Tai Chi master and continue on their original vector, or just double-down.

Because of course, NOTHING is too ridiculous or nefarious to ascribe to The Other Side. And if the suspicions are shown to be inaccurate, well, I’m sure They are up to something just as bad but slightly different, and I’ll say the same no matter how many calm and reasonable explanations are offered.

I suspect that you are correct in that this is not a nefarious plot hatched by the communistic/nazi/one world order/bankers, etc. But it is a poorly written law with multiple unintended consequences. This shows that incompetence can be much worse than heinous plotting.

@mikeyes:
Oh, indubitably. I understand the motivation behind the loose wording: anything too specific, and the actual targets (who are the people profiting in currently legal ways by deliberately creating a market for product they know full well is stolen) just wriggle through the loopholes. There’s no intent to target anyone else, and precious little likelihood of using the law against the genPop.

Yes, a ridiculous number of entirely innocent enterprises are *technically* included under the law, the same way that school bake sales and office fantasy sports leagues are often in violation of any number of laws. And yes, this law (assuming it survives judicial review) will almost certainly be used against targets outside the currently stated targets (just like post-911 “terrorism” laws). But just like the terrorism laws, it’s going to used on people they were going after anyway, with more/harsher/easier-to-get charges. It won’t be used to create a new sui generis class of targets.

And y’know? All that is perfectly sufficient for hatin’ on the bill. That’s before mentioning the fact that the broad wording makes it (in my entirely-IANAL-view) likely to die a swift death in court, which makes it a pointless waste of everyone’s time and money. Plenty of cause to point and laugh!

But no. Everyone has to clutch the pearls and declare that this is an assault on poverty and freedom and SWAT teams will be going after garage sales and this just *proves* that everyone I dislike is a freedom-hating monster… gah.

I’m not a “both sides do it” centrist. This kind of self-reinforcing non-falsifiable irrationality is what I hate most about the current Republican party, and I see it as pretty much definitive of their tactics and worldview. Doesn’t mean I like it any better when I see it on “our” side.

tl;dr– Reality is already sufficiently outrageous, and much more persuasive to the people who can actually be persuaded.

The solution is that you take the cash anyway because money doesn’t work like that and then you take the state to court and win and that solves that for everyone who doesn’t live in or own property in or have a kid in school in Louisiana because they all get to pay for it

1) We need to match the right in anger and strident assertion of our beliefs, because during this moment in history, we are rational and right while they are irrational and wrong,
2) It doesn’t matter anyway because this will get blown to pieces in every court it rolls into after it’s enacted

[…] further ado, we give you Louisiana’s latest state law that bans anyone buying or selling second hand goods from using cash. That’s right, if you go into an antique store in Louisiana, you can no longer buy that very […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

[…] further ado, we give you Louisiana’s latest state law that bans anyone buying or selling second hand goods from using cash. That’s right, if you go into an antique store in Louisiana, you can no longer buy that very […]